Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do

posted at 1:50 pm on May 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Jon Huntsman gave a relatively brief interview to Time, but it’s likely to create longer term problems for his rumored presidential run in the GOP. Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade proposals because “this isn’t the moment,” but he buys the climate change argument because “90% of the scientists” say it’s happening. If 90% of oncologists identified a carcinogen, Huntsman says, he’d believe them too (via Taegan Goddard):

You also believe in climate change, right?

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

Will it ever be the moment, though? The environment never takes priority because it never seems like something has to be addressed this quarter or else, but if you look at what’s happening to our planet…

If anyone knows about the need to clean up the planet, we do; we’ve been living somewhere [Beijing] where you feel like you’re killing your kids sending them out to school every day. But putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth right now is counter-productive. If we have a lost decade, then nothing else matters. Ask Japan about that.

Do “90% of the scientists” believe in anthropogenic global warming? “Climate change” is a meaningless term; the climate is always changing. “Global warming” is also meaningless in a policy sense, as warming due to natural changes can’t be reversed by political policy. I have seen plenty of claims of “consensus” on AGW, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that agreement on AGW totals to 90% of all scientists, or even all climate scientists.

The better evaluation is whether the modeling for the claims of AGW bear out in terms of data. On that score, the answer is an emphatic no, as one former AGW theorist discovered. Bruce McQuain wrote about David Evans last weekend and his conversion to AGW skepticism:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

And when should people like Huntsman stop buying what scientists claim? When they cease being scientists:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

At least Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade … for now. When the economy recovers, will Huntsman decide to support government intervention in energy production and consumption in response to bad science? Do we want to find out the hard way?

Update: The 90% claim is a canard, says The American Pundit, and was exposed as such years ago.

Another moron shoves foot into mouth and out of the running. 90% of scientists DO NOT concur with man-made global warming. Also, most scientists agree the IPCC form of ‘science’ is broken crap. IPCC cherry picked studies, confused propaganda with science, and overstated confidence levels (is Hunstman saying Himalayan Glaciers will be gone in 24 years?). Data was hidden which disproved their conclusions (tree ring data either disproves today is really the warmest, or that tree rings are no good in measuring historic climate – all hidden in “hide the decline”).

yes, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age – yet there is no proof it is caused by CO2 or humans, and there is no mathematical proof that the 0.8°C increase in the last 100 years is even real (the best global index is +/- 3°C per year is).

I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring.

I’m sure 90% of scientists once believed in a geocentric universe. So what? Since when is science subject to a vote, especially when most of the voters are being paid or intimidated into voting for one side?

Does Huntsman have any critical thinking skills of his own or does he think we should make public policy based on a dubious theory that’s won a rigged popularity contest?

As a PhD STEM scientist, let me just say this to Huntsman: herd mentality is alive and well in academia. If it appears that 90% of scientists agree on AGW (and even that’s debatable), it’s likely because many are chasing federal funding or due to problems inherent in the peer-review process. You want to believe in X, fine; but don’t do it because 90% of scientists believe it. Do it because you think it’s supported empirically.

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

Hmmm, you needed it to be tried to figure out it wouldn’t work, when anyone with two brain cells already knew it wouldn’t work.

In the case of Jon Huntsman, this apple fell pretty far from the the old apple tree. He doesn’t sound like his father.

I agree with him to some extent – there is climate change. It’s called Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter and has been happening since the beginning of time.

It wasn’t hard to figure out that these “settled science” people would change the name from global warming to climate change (to cover all contingencies) after the climate started proving what fools they were.

Good post, Ed. Unfortunately you are applying logic and common sense the AGW issue. Huntsman is a politician, which means there’s a 90% chance he’s an elitist who hangs with other elitists who in order to set themselves apart engage in ‘avant garde’ group think (since being rich has never been enough to truly be an elite). ‘Avant garde’ group think is not based on logic, common sense, or real scientific evidence. It is esoteric, amorphous and, well frankly, incomprehensible to us troglodytes. So of course Huntsman believes in AGW.

Next question: Did Huntsman check to see how many scientists among that 90% believed that climate change is man-made and is not a natural occurance?

pilamaye on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Or how many were climate scientists?

If 90% of Chiropractors (Doctors),identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
If 90% of Attorneys (Doctors of Jurisprudence), identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
If 90% of Doctors of Theology, English, Languages, Women’s Study, basket weaving, identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
Well that is what 90% of these “scientists” are, just scientists of other types of science.
Just ask Richard Lindzen, a real climate scientists…

And another thing, his point to “prove” his assertion ironically leads in the opposite direction. How many times has some food or activity been announced as causing cancer only to find out a few years later that the “scientific study” sensationalized for a headline had a flaw and said the food or activity may not cause cancer after all?

Actually, that’s a pretty good answer. He’s NOT a scientist. He’s NOT a weather expert. We all have to depend on experts in their own fields to know things. We try not to get too fat and not to eat tons of lard, because experts tell us it will kill us. We don’t do all sorts of things because experts tell us it’s wrong. And unless we spend a lifetime researching the topics, how can we know?

What do some of you expect the guy to say? “No, I certainly do not. I’ve done at least 2 hours of research on the internet, and I’ve concluded it is false. Bologna, I say! Screw the experts.”

Which doesn’t even begin to address how few climate scientists there really are, or the fact that most of their “science” is based on computer modeling, which is literally worthless for solving problems with many interactive variables, known and unknown, of guessed values.

Ron Paul raised more than $6 million in 24 hours in 2007. He was still done for. I’m not impressed by connections to wealthy or terribly committed donors. I’m impressed by an ability to win actual votes.

Romney, like Gingrich and Huntsman, has juicy quotes galore that will be used against him effectively. He can have all the money he wants. If his opponents remind voters 24/7 that he supports ObamaCare 1.0, he’s done.

Has Huntsman never heard of East Anglican University and climate gate?
Has he never seen the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle?
Has he never looked at the climate change treaties and looked at their consequences?

Has he never seen the gulf between Al Gore’s rhetoric and his behavior?

I hear that 90% of Aztec Witch Doctors say that if you do not sacrifice your most beautiful daughters to the volcano gods, the mountain will blow its top!

When the volcano blows anyway, only then do we learn that the girls were not pretty enough.

The science behind any study or conclusion must make sense to me or I have trouble believing it.

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO feeling less-than confident with the current crop of candidates we have lining up to run for President!

We either have fart blasts from the past who paint themselves as being unifiers who then turn against their own party members and then try to deny they did to begin with, or we have certified tinfoil-hatted loons who are clearly three French Fries shy of a Happy Meal!

I don’t see the problem of being a conservative and having a concern for our ecosystems. I’m a pretty far right guy, and I also have some common sense. Billions of people burnign carbon should have SOME impact on our environment, right?

I’m not saying you have to buy into Al Gore, or the polar bear on the ice cap. But if anyone remembers what a mess the environment was in the 80’s, and how much cleaner we act now, isn’t that a good thing?

I don’t buy alarmism for political sake, but I do understand that we have an impact on the Earth.